Slashdot Mirror

No, I get annoyed because one isn't addressing some key points. Which have been raised numerous times by criticis:

http://bravenewclimate.com/200...

http://www.resilience.org/stor...

http://bravenewclimate.com/201...

http://www.windaction.org/post...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

One of the key points, for instance, is the economical viability of it. Let me simplify the issue: say, you have country 1 and country 2. both have judged the way to go is 100% for renewable energy, like wind. say, there is no wind in country 1. What the authors now say is: no problem, we'll create a smart grid, and that will transport it from country 2.

HOWEVER... what they then don't realise is, that if country 2 has made more or less enough windmills to get going, it CAN NOT sustain a complete other country, unless they have double the amount needed to sustain their own (assuming both countries use roughly the same amount).

Thus they need far more capacity, if they are going to provide another country. However, this also means that for most of the time, there will be a HUGE overcompensation (namely all the times there is wind). Which means half of those windmills will have nothing to do at that time, while yet having been costly to built.

The same goes for country 2 in regard to country 1. Worse, if there is a large weather-front which is wind-poor, it could be that both countries need to get the electricity from a third or fourth country. Which in turn has to provide enough electricity for BOTH countries, then. so even more over-compensating must happen, to deal with this possibility.

Now, I don't know how things go in the USA, but that sure as hell wouldn't work in Europe, where the countries are much smaller, and much more heavily populated. And it would be quite economically unsound to have a windmill-park that is much larger than needed for ones' own demand, just in case another country would fall without.

Now, I read the rosy look that "storage of heat in soil and water" will deal with that, but I just don't think that's plausible. The current best systems, don't let you recuperate the stored energy for more than a couple of hours at best.

I find such claims, and especially the lack of answers and facts in these sort of papers wholly unsatisfactory. There have been many, many valid counterarguments and criticism on it, yet I see it nowhere addressed let alone refuted by the authors of any of those pro-renewable papers.

No, I get annoyed because one isn't addressing some key points. Which have been raised numerous times by criticis:

http://bravenewclimate.com/200...

http://www.resilience.org/stor...

http://bravenewclimate.com/201...

http://www.windaction.org/post...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

One of the key points, for instance, is the economical viability of it. Let me simplify the issue: say, you have country 1 and country 2. both have judged the way to go is 100% for renewable energy, like wind. say, there is no wind in country 1. What the authors now say is: no problem, we'll create a smart grid, and that will transport it from country 2.

HOWEVER... what they then don't realise is, that if country 2 has made more or less enough windmills to get going, it CAN NOT sustain a complete other country, unless they have double the amount needed to sustain their own (assuming both countries use roughly the same amount).

Thus they need far more capacity, if they are going to provide another country. However, this also means that for most of the time, there will be a HUGE overcompensation (namely all the times there is wind). Which means half of those windmills will have nothing to do at that time, while yet having been costly to built.

The same goes for country 2 in regard to country 1. Worse, if there is a large weather-front which is wind-poor, it could be that both countries need to get the electricity from a third or fourth country. Which in turn has to provide enough electricity for BOTH countries, then. so even more over-compensating must happen, to deal with this possibility.

Now, I don't know how things go in the USA, but that sure as hell wouldn't work in Europe, where the countries are much smaller, and much more heavily populated. And it would be quite economically unsound to have a windmill-park that is much larger than needed for ones' own demand, just in case another country would fall without.

Now, I read the rosy look that "storage of heat in soil and water" will deal with that, but I just don't think that's plausible. The current best systems, don't let you recuperate the stored energy for more than a couple of hours at best.

I find such claims, and especially the lack of answers and facts in these sort of papers wholly unsatisfactory. There have been many, many valid counterarguments and criticism on it, yet I see it nowhere addressed let alone refuted by the authors of any of those pro-renewable papers.

And also look at the critique of such peer-reviewed publications: http://bravenewclimate.com/200...

Otherwise, one could be confused into thinking that being peer reviewed means the conclusions are all correct.

I believe you are wrong. Molten salt reactors are so safe it will take a comet / asteroid / military precision strike to cause a significant radioactivity release, and there is no water pressure on the inside to spit stuff out.
If you want to make the reactor 99.999999999999999% safe just bury it deeper. conventional reactors are too big to be buried, molten salts are compact enough you could install them 10 feet underground (with 10ft of reinforced concrete above it), and have all of its connections first go sideways before go up.
All three significant nuclear accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima) wouldn't have happened with a molten salt reactor.
Coal kills. Natural gas kills. Oil kills. Coal kills 200k yearly worldwide. Natural gas and oil kills 10k yearly worldwide. When will we understand that fukushima radiation killed nobody and the real reason the quarantine is still going on is the result of unscientific fear of cancers that never materialized with any nuclear accident ?
Three Mile Island killed zero people, caused zero detectable deviation from cancer rates (specially no thryreoid or leukemia cancer rate deviations, main cancer types from radiation).
Chernobyl killed less than 200 people from radiation sickness and might eventually kill a whopping 6000 people from cancer compared to those that swear it kill one million, but can't list the names of even a couple thousand cancer cases (with names and diagnosis).
If people would be allowed back into Fukushima one year after the accident, cancer rates from that population would be smaller than those of people living in downtown Tokyo.
http://bravenewclimate.com/201...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/ot...
The problem isn't the disaster but rather Linear no threshold radiation cancer models which were created by deeply anti nuclear weapon scientists desperate to instill fear on governments undergoing nuclear weapons tests.
If LNT were true, cancer rates for people living above 10000ft / 3Km would be horrendous.

When renewable advocates boast about energy production, the numbers are inevitable inflated by huge amounts of biomass, or meaningless capacity numbers which do not represent actual energy delivered. Leveling forests to burn for fuel is not environmentally friendly, and not even carbon neutral on the time scales that matter. In some cases, forests are pelletized and shipped over seas, making the carbon impact even worse than burning coal. Unfortunately, aside from hydro, it is the only renewable that is reliable, and thus forms an integral part of "renewable" plans. More typically though, coal and gas take up the slack.

Read more about Australia specifically, or bioenergy in general. Sadly there is only one form of clean energy that is environmentally friendly and scalable, and the renewable fanatics will have nothing to do with it, instead promoting a world of poverty and mass environmental devastation. While solar and wind have their place, it would be much more effective to complement them with nuclear instead.

Burning it in an IFR or LFTR (see Destruction of existing long lived wastes) will take care of the long-lived actinides and reduce the maximum half-life in the waste to something on the order of 30 years versus 24,000 years. "Fission products at that point, in about 300 years [10 half-lives], are less radioactive than natural uranium." - that's how 'clean' the waste is from a LFTR. Current PWR waste is 'hot' for 10,000-1,000,000 years in comparison.

This guy is a climatologist and promoting nuclear power is basically the main thing he does now.

"Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/

Instead of being some necessary evil, I see GenIV nukes as the SABRE that will kill coal. They are Safe, Affordable, Burn Bombs and Waste, are Reliable 24 hours a day, and offer an Enormous hit of power to an energy-hungry world.

1. SAFE
New reactor cores are self-cooling. If Homer Simpson falls asleep and doesn't see a Tsunami approaching to wipe out the exterior backup cooling systems, don't panic! Gen4 reactors don't *need* exterior backup cooling systems. While they use better mechanical cooling systems than those at Fukishima, the real genius is that modern reactor cores themselves are the final safety feature. If a Gen4 Integral Fast Reactor core starts to overheat — and all the other powerful cooling systems fail for some horrible set of unfortunate events — something new will happen. The fuel rods will start to expand. As they swell, they start to leak neutrons. This "Neutron Leak" shuts down the nuclear reaction. In Gen4 reactors, the reactor core itself is the final safety switch. We've had this technology since 1986, so the real scandal is that Japan's nukes were not retrofitted with this or other passive safety features.

Banning nuclear power because of Fukishima is like banning aviation because of the Hindenberg. Fukishima's nukes were 40-year-old Gen2 reactors. We are now up to Gen3.5 and will soon have Gen4 reactors.

Not only this, but nuclear power has the *best* safety record of *any* major power provider. Hydro dams have burst and wiped out villages, coal kills thousands of people a year through lung and throat cancers and disorders (let alone all the mining accidents around the world — especially in China!) and service men can even fall off the top of wind turbines. People can even die falling off the roof when installing Solar PV. The take home message is *all* power sources contain risks, and yet nuclear power simply has the *best* safety record on a death per terrawatt basis. They can also be built underground for additional safety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98frSed0F5s&feature=player_embedded#!

2. AFFORDABLE No one knows exactly what Integral Fast Reactors will finally cost, but here's a few thoughts. Older reactors tend to be one-off projects with all those individual project costs. Think of the difference between a hand-crafted Rolls Royce and a production-line Hyundai. Gen IV Nukes are going modular. They're going up on the production-line, which will crash the costs. Even today's Gen3.5 AP1000 can be put on the assembly line to bring down the costs exponentially. Some estimate tomorrow's Gen4 nukes might just be competitive with coal. And that's today's coal, not tomorrow's post-peak coal economy.

3. BURNS BOMBS AND WASTE
Integral Fast Reactors burn nuclear waste and warheads. Today's nukes only burn 0.06% of the energy available in uranium. Tomorrow's Gen4 reactors will burn the rest.

Nuclear waste is no longer the problem but the SOLUTION to climate change and peak oil. We could run the world for 500 years on the nuclear waste we have today. Indeed, there is so much uranium and thorium on land and especially in our oceans that we could — hypothetically — power the world until the sun expands and wipes out life on earth!

Now let's think about bombs.
* IFR’s don’t produce the right material for bombs. The plutonium bred from IFR’s is mixed in with t

Wow what state do you live in?

As for liability see this http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/21/nuclear-risk-insurance/

I was a long time anti-nuclear activist. I have changed my whole view of nuclear power since then.

Anti-nuclear activists present nuclear waste as the problem. This is just not true. GenIV reactors like GE's S-PRISM will burn nuclear waste! We have so much nuclear waste that we could run the world for 500 years on nuclear waste! (And by then, who knows what energy systems we might have?) In other words, nuclear waste is not the problem, it is the SOLUTION to peak oil and climate change.

GenIV reactors will also have passive safety features that Fukishima just didn't have. Fearing all nuclear power because of Fukishima is like fearing all flight because of the Hindenberg!

Basically Professor Brook says a vote for renewables only is a vote for climate change to continue BAU. We can't run a wind and solar grid without super-expensive *economy crushing* back up. As Brook says, after a 20 year wind program Denmark is STILL at about 650g Co2 / kwh. After a 10 year nuclear program France is down to 90g!! http://bravenewclimate.com/

And solar works how much of the day? Solar PV hitting 'grid parity' is a myth buddy! It's only 'grid parity' if you don't include building 5 or 6 times the solar PV you actually require so you can store the excess energy for when a cloud covers your panel or we encounter that horrible phenomenon known as NIGHT TIME! THEN we also have to include whatever energy storage system you are proposing STORES all that power. Do the math and get back to us on that will ya? Otherwise, a vote for solar PV is just another vote for the coal industry and ever more global warming, asthma, and all the other hideous consequences of burning coal. GenIV nukes that are NOT going to "Fukishima", that burn nuclear waste, and that could run the world for 500 years on today's nuclear waste are THE only answer we have right now! (To think I used to love solar PV about a year ago!) See http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/ for more, and stop telling us outright LIES about solar PV reaching 'parity'. It only does that in the context of relying on the coal-fired grid you use every time NIGHT happens!

Don't be silly, we're right on the brink of a major breakthrough!

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/04/25/npfb-1978/

The 'greenies' have ben 'Microsofting* us for decades now. It's time to do something for -now- and plan for -later- when the big breakthrough lands.

* Microsoft: verb; To announce a feature or product that negates the value of the most likely competitor, but never actually deliver the product. See als: Real Soon Now.

Integral Fast Reactors are awesome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/21/response-to-an-integral-fast-reactor-ifr-critique/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99xx7.htm
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/10/21/how-the-integral-fast-reactor-was-killed-10214.aspx

There doesn't appear to be an issue with fires in spent fuel ponds according to this article I found (below), and the discussions I've been having here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/18/fukushima-radiation-tsunamis/

Spent fuel heatup following loss of water during storage. [PWR; BWR]
Benjamin, A.S. ; McCloskey, D.J. ; Powers, D.A. ; Dupree, S.A.

Abstract: An analysis of spent fuel heatup following a hypothetical accident involving drainage of the storage pool is presented. Computations based upon a new computer code called SFUEL have been performed to assess the effect of decay time, fuel element design, storage rack design, packing density, room ventilation, drainage level, and other variables on the heatup characteristics of the spent fuel and to predict the conditions under which clad failure will occur. Possible storage pool design modifications and/or onsite emergency action have also been considered.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6272964

A commenter posted:
>>Importantly, reading the documents introduction
>>& conclusion section seems to indicate that
>>there is a “decay time” of 5 to 150 days after the
>>BWR fuel assemblies are put in the spent fuel
>>pond, after which the fuel assemblies do not
>>reach the critical 850-950C following a complete
>>water drain.

The article seems to suggest it isn't a burning issue, although the radiation would be quite locally intense (within the pool itself) until it is recovered by water. Nothing would be leaking about into the air though. If anyone has a different take on the article share them.

Assholes like the guy who wrote the following "even if you were standing at the top of the cooling tower you would be fine" and "fukushima is currently safe and will stay safe" should be sent to help maintain the reactors without any protective suit. Link: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

He wrote that 3 days ago, before the primary containment was breached (or before we knew that it was). All that was happening was steam release at the time.

I'm pro-nuclear but i'm sick of this downplaying bullshit. Reactors that require actively powered safety systems ARE flawed.

This entire crises we have had absolute dickheads claiming that the radiation levels are safe at a time when people in the immediate vicinity are being encouraged to evacuate by the authorities. There is a radiation leak. This is a fact. Up to 400mSv/h near the reactor has been confirmed (noticable radiation sickness will happen at 800 and above, but 400 is still very, very dangerous). People need to be acknowledging that fact. Much smaller than Chernobyl but there's no reason to downplay it. There are some heroes right now working in the irradiated zone trying to keep things under control. There are people in the immediate area who should leave for the next few days.

Assholes like the guy who wrote the following "even if you were standing at the top of the cooling tower you would be fine" and "fukushima is currently safe and will stay safe" should be sent to help maintain the reactors without any protective suit. Link: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Enough with the downplaying. The design WAS flawed. People ARE risking their lives to contain it. We should learn from this.

Before commenting, try and understand the design and facts

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Mod parent up. That was a really interesting read.

Before commenting, try and understand the design and facts

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

A meltdown... into the bottom of the containment vessel.

Yes, it'll be a pain to tidy up, but it will be nothing like Three Mile Island.

Read http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Solar thermal may be cheaper than PV but is still a lot more expensive than nuclear. The Arithmetic adds up to Nuclear

I'm not aware that there is any solar thermal plant in existence that has anything like the 90% capacity factor of nuclear. Andasol 1 and 2 in Spain as I understand it have 7 hours of storage. The most likely scenario for solar thermal is that it is backed up by gas in the immediate future.

And what do you do during the evening, night, and early morning when there's no or too little sunlight? Oh, right, you burn natural gas. I suppose that's not the worst outcome in the world. I suppose it's better to burn natural gas part of the time, than to burn coal all of the time.

I suppose you could also supplement solar with wind - sun doesn't shine at night, but the wind often blows, so you might be able, with the combination, to get enough power, but it will be expensive power with current technology. Nuclear, even though the plants are expensive (but getting cheaper, at least outside the U.S. and Europe), just provides *so much* power that when you break it down to a per-unit-energy basis, it's actually the least-expensive alternative.

Indeed the world cannot sit on it's hands waiting fusion. Fission is a highly practical, safe and clean form of electricity generation. And Generation IV reactors make it sustainable and hugely reduce the waste issue. If you haven't seen it, there is a host of informative material and discussion on Barry Brook's blog. Brooke is Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide and one of the group including Hansen pushing for development and deployment of Gen III and Gen IV nuclear.

Brave New Climate

My understanding is Integral Fast Reactors can't breed nuclear bomb material because the plutonium is mixed in with caesium and other junk. It's not 'clean' enough, and basically there are plenty of cheaper ways to build bombs. The power / bombs link is tenuous at best. Many countries that built the bomb did so before building nuclear power, and many countries today that built nuclear power don't have bombs. Oh, and as 93% of the world's Co2 comes from countries that ALREADY have the bomb, what exactly would we gain by banning IFR's? I happen to think Fast Breeders are the answer to peak oil, global warming and nuclear waste! Besides, 10% of USA electricity comes from burning old Soviet Warheads: nuclear power is literally eating nuclear bombs.

If you are concerned about energy security, independence from imported oil, peak oil, climate change, coal particulate pollution and lung disease, heck, IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTE then this is even MORE of a reason to build a whole generation of GenIV reactors!

According to environmental scientist Professor Barry Brook, today's waste could run the world for 500 years if we built enough IFR's. Who knows what energy technologies we'd have by then? But for now, we owe it to our great grandchildren to solve climate change by burning today's nuclear waste. Viewed in this light, nuclear waste is not the problem but the solution!!!

http://bravenewclimate.com/

A system designed to deliver 1000 MW after storage would need a 1000 MW hydrogen-fuelled power station in addition to the dish system which generated the 1000 MW supply of hydrogen to run it, indicating high capital and embodied costs. The efficiencies of the various steps (e.g., .4 for hydrogen production, .8 for handling/transport, .4 for fuel cell generation) suggest an overall gross solar to wheels/use efficiency of 13%, from which the embodied and operating costs of materials-expensive hydrogen handling plant would have to be deducted. It is therefore not clear that this path would be more viable than the others considered above.

However, 4th Gen nuclear that eats nuclear waste could do the job far cheaper AND provide abundant reliable power no matter what the season or weather. So, 4 or 5 times the price for solar power that's not guaranteed, or cheap abundant electricity that could run the world for 500 years off today's nuclear waste (even if we closed all the uranium mines -- and there's enough uranium and thorium on earth to run Gen4 reactors for hundreds of millions of years). We have the technology TODAY to solve peak oil, global warming, and nuclear waste: we just need the Australian laws against nukes to be revoked so we can actually let the marketplace decide.

A system designed to deliver 1000 MW after storage would need a 1000 MW hydrogen-fuelled power station in addition to the dish system which generated the 1000 MW supply of hydrogen to run it, indicating high capital and embodied costs. The efficiencies of the various steps (e.g., .4 for hydrogen production, .8 for handling/transport, .4 for fuel cell generation) suggest an overall gross solar to wheels/use efficiency of 13%, from which the embodied and operating costs of materials-expensive hydrogen handling plant would have to be deducted. It is therefore not clear that this path would be more viable than the others considered above.

However, 4th Gen nuclear that eats nuclear waste could do the job far cheaper AND provide abundant reliable power no matter what the season or weather. So, 4 or 5 times the price for solar power that's not guaranteed, or cheap abundant electricity that could run the world for 500 years off today's nuclear waste (even if we closed all the uranium mines -- and there's enough uranium and thorium on earth to run Gen4 reactors for hundreds of millions of years). We have the technology TODAY to solve peak oil, global warming, and nuclear waste: we just need the Australian laws against nukes to be revoked so we can actually let the marketplace decide.

A cold-blooded examination of the industry's numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone's tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively).

Where did he get the quote for 'clean coal'... the coal industry? Show me ONE full scaled "clean coal" plant in operation today! THAT's the industry that is a myth.

Now don't get me wrong: there have been nuclear cost blow outs on a massive scale. As the pharmaceutical companies say in their defence, "These pills might only cost 20cents each, but the first one cost us a billion!" Same with new technology nukes. However, climatologist Professor Barry Brook has been studying nuclear power avidly the past year or so, and documents his findings on the price of today's technology here.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/23/recent-nuclear-power-cost-estimates-separating-fact-from-myth/

let alone the enormous benefits of putting smaller, modular 300MW IFR's on the production line and then mass-producing them with world's best standards inspections, putting them on the back of a truck, and delivering them on site. If you order 4 you might even get free fries with that. ;-)

GE have a plan for a small version that could be produce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM

Don't get me wrong: I love renewables. But for that portion of the grid that just HAS TO be reliable, baseload power, independent of the fickle nature of the weather or less sunlight due to the wrong SEASON, I say we use nukes that can be built cheaper than coal, actually deal with the legacy of nuclear waste left to us from the previous generation's inferior plants. Add electric cars and fast rail to the mix and these could solve global warming, peak oil and nuclear waste in one hit!

And maybe the CIA can spin how record heat waves next summer are a result of global warming as well. Please direct me to a source for "the coldest winter in decades worldwide" statement. They had a record heat wave in Australia in November. The third one in the last 2 years.

Of course weather happens. It's just the noise signal on the climate carrier wave. It's winter and we expect cold weather. Sometimes records will be set. Across the Continental US in the 2000's the ratio of record highs to record lows is 2.04:1. In the 1990's the ratio was 1.36:1. Those are the kind of statistics that have something to do with global warming.

Personally, I see far more twisting of facts coming from the anti-global warming side of the argument.